Re: [ee4j-pmc] Request assistance for Jakarta Contexts and Dependency In

[Ivar Grimstad <ivar.grimstad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I don't think a restructuring review is needed as long as the scope of the project is the same. The granularity of the released artifacts doesn't affect this scope, so you should be good to go with your planned releases.

Ivar

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:37 PM Scott Stark via ee4j-pmc <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It was suggested that the current split of the CDI specification into a core part and an integration part should entail a restructuring review like was done for security:

https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.es/reviews/restructuring-review

What is happening in CDI does not really meet the definition of a restructuring review in the EFSP:
https://www.eclipse.org/projects/efsp/?version=1.3#efsp-restructuring-review

and I don't see a restructuring review as one of the types under the create new release option. Are we fine to just create a CDI EE 4.1 release and update the CDI 4.1 release to reference that the integration chapters are being moved into the CDI EE 4.1 release?

Scott

_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc

--

Ivar Grimstad

Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration.